ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS vs. FIMAH AND OTHERS [1994]DLSC5206

Date	1994-07-26
Suit No.	[1994 - 95] 2 G B R 936 – 942 SC
Citation No.	[1994]DLSC5206

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ANTHONY NORVOR FOR E D KOM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1994]DLSC5206
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ANSU-AGYEI AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FIMAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

[1994 - 95] 2 G B R 936 – 942 SC&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 26 JULY 1994<o:p></o:p>

ANTHONY
NORVOR FOR E D KOM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

FRANCOIS
JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, AIKINS JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC, AMPIAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>AMPIAH JSC. <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the decision of the chieftaincy tribunal of the National
House of Chiefs.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioners in this matter instituted chieftaincy proceedings against the
respondents at the chieftaincy tribunal of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of
Chiefs. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the tribunal was
incompetent to entertain the action since the matter did not involve a
paramount stool or an occupant of a paramount stool. The tribunal overruled the
objection and insisted on hearing the matter whereupon the respondents appealed
against the ruling to the chieftaincy tribunal of the National House of Chiefs.
The National House of Chiefs chieftaincy tribunal upheld the appeal but ruled
that it had jurisdiction to exercise original jurisdiction in the matter. It
relied on section 23(2) of Chieftaincy (National and Regional Houses of Chiefs)
Procedure Rules 1972 (CI 27) and also article 179(5) of the 1979 Constitution
which was the relevant law at the time. The respondents have appealed against
that ruling.<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought in the chieftaincy tribunal of the Regional House of Chiefs
were:<o:p></o:p>“(1) A declaration that the
nomination, election and installation of Ansu-Agyei (1st respondent herein) as
Krontihene of Wamfie in the Dormaa Traditional Area by the 2nd, 3rd 4th 5th 6th
7th and 8th respondents is null and void and of no effect as the same is
contrary to custom and usage of Dormaa traditional area.<o:p></o:p>(ii) A declaration that the decision
of the 9th respondent herein (as evidenced in letters dated 23rd and 24th
August 1982)&nbsp; not to allow Nana Peprah of
Wamfie to swear the oath of allegiance to the Dormaa Traditional Council is
null and void as same is contrary to Dormaa customary law and usage.<o:p></o:p>(iii) A declaration that the
respondents herein are bound by the decision/recommendation of the Brong-Ahafo
Regional House of Chiefs in the matter of Nana Abena Fima and Eleven others v
Nana Kwesi Owusu and Six others dated 29 June 1982 and that the 1st respondent
herein not being a member of the Amma Kuma royal house of Wamfie his purported
nomination, election by the respondents herein is null and void and of no
effect.<o:p></o:p>(iv) An order of the judicial
committee to nullify the said nomination, election and installation of
Ansu-Agyei (1st respondent) as Krontihene of Wamfie in the Dormaa traditional
area.<o:p></o:p>(v) Perpetual injunction to restrain
the 1st respondent herein from acting in any way as Krontihene of Wamfie or
from performing functions in the Dormaa traditional area.<o:p></o:p>(vi) An order of perpetual injunction
to restrain the 9th respondent from recognising the 1st respondent
as chief of Wamfie or admitting him to any meeting of the 9th respondent
Council.”<o:p></o:p>The
Dormaa Traditional Council (the 9th respondent herein) had been joined in the
action for the refusal of the Omanhene of the Dormaa traditional area and the
president of the 9th respondent to allow the 2nd petitioner to swear the oath
of allegiance to him and to restrain the 9th respondent from recognising the
1st respondent as the chief of Wamfie and krontihene of the Dormaa traditional
area. It is obvious that the 9th respondent had been joined to enable the
petitioners take their action away from that council.<o:p></o:p>This
action was commenced in 1984. The relevant constitution is therefore the 1979
Constitution as saved. Article 180(2) of the constitution provides:<o:p></o:p>“The Regional House of Chiefs shall -<o:p></o:p>(a) have original jurisdiction in all
matters relating to a paramount stool or the occupant of a paramount stool,
including a queen-mother to a paramount a stool.”<o:p></o:p>See
also section 23(1) of the Chieftaincy Act 1971 (Act 370). The reliefs sought by
the petitioners have no direct reference to a paramount stool or the occupant
of a paramount stool or the queen-mother stool. The only reference to the
paramount stool is contained in paragraph 12 of the petitioners’ statement of
the facts and particulars upon which they seek to rely for the reliefs sought.
It states:<o:p></o:p>“(12) That the petitioners presented
Nana Peprah (installed under the stool name of Nana Kojo Peprah) to Nana
Agyemang Badu, Omanhene of Dormaa traditional area to swear the oath of
allegiance to him but the Dormaahene for no reason objected to Nana Peprah’s
candidature and prevented him from the swearing the oath of allegiance.”<o:p></o:p>The
Omanhene is also the president of the traditional council. Though customary
activities may be carried out at the council premises using some of the staff,
the swearing of the oath of allegiance is purely customary and is the
responsibility of the Omanhene qua Omanhene and not as the president of the
council. References were made to certain letters issued from the council but
the source of those letters is the Omanhene. The substance of the petitioner’s
complaint is the refusal of the Omanhene to allow the 1st petitioner to sw</main>